By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,991 Members | 1,917 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,991 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

HTML4.01 STRICT and hyperlinks with target

P: n/a

Hi group,

I encoutered page validation error, but I don't know a way around.

The page has the following doctype:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

Some hyperlinks need to open to a new window, so I used the (wrong)
target="" attribute.

w3c validation gave me this:

---------------------------------------------------------------
Validation Output: 1 Error
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. Error Line 13, Column 108: there is no attribute "TARGET".

…="http://www.example.com" target="_blank">mylink</aen

You have used the attribute named above in your document, but the
document type you are using does not support that attribute for this
element. This error is often caused by incorrect use of the "Strict"
document type with a document that uses frames (e.g. you must use the
"Transitional" document type to get the "target" attribute), or by using
vendor proprietary extensions such as "marginheight" (this is usually
fixed by using CSS to achieve the desired effect instead).

This error may also result if the element itself is not supported in the
document type you are using, as an undefined element will have no
supported attributes; in this case, see the element-undefined error
message for further information.

How to fix: check the spelling and case of the element and attribute,
(Remember XHTML is all lower-case) and/or check that they are both
allowed in the chosen document type, and/or use CSS instead of this
attribute. If you received this error when using the <embedelement to
incorporate flash media in a Web page, see the FAQ item on valid flash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
My question: How do I use the good old target in hyperlinks without
JavaScript?

Thanks for your time.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
Oct 8 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
92 Replies


P: n/a
CJM
You have 3 choices:
- don't try to specify the target window, and let the use choose (preferred
by the purists)
- use javascript; such that the page validates, but the target of each link
is changed on load (the validating compromise workaround)
- use target attribute as normal, and just ignore the validation errors.

To me, validation is a means to an end. And for many of my sites and
applications, I actively want the (usually external) link to open in a new
window. Often I don't want to leave it up to a user - usually because my
user-base couldn't shift-click/ctrl-click/right-click if their life depended
on it (even with on-screen prompts), but often because I'm developing
applications that need to behave in a set way. In these cases, I don't want
to leave the choice up to the user, any more than I would allow them to
choose in one of my desktop applications.

For more conventional, internet-facing websites (as opposed to intranet
applications), I do tend to leave the choice up to the user, but not always.

This will be a contraversial post in this NG, but I think my stance is a
popular one. However, I would like to see a change in the standards to allow
an attribute that 'suggests' a target and allow the users browser settings
to determine whether they want to accept the default suggestions, or make
their own choices. I think this would appeal to the purists, but still cater
for the masses.
Just my £0.02.

Oct 8 '08 #2

P: n/a

CJM schreef:
You have 3 choices:
- don't try to specify the target window, and let the use choose
(preferred by the purists)
- use javascript; such that the page validates, but the target of each
link is changed on load (the validating compromise workaround)
- use target attribute as normal, and just ignore the validation errors.

To me, validation is a means to an end. And for many of my sites and
applications, I actively want the (usually external) link to open in a
new window. Often I don't want to leave it up to a user - usually
because my user-base couldn't shift-click/ctrl-click/right-click if
their life depended on it (even with on-screen prompts), but often
because I'm developing applications that need to behave in a set way. In
these cases, I don't want to leave the choice up to the user, any more
than I would allow them to choose in one of my desktop applications.

For more conventional, internet-facing websites (as opposed to intranet
applications), I do tend to leave the choice up to the user, but not
always.

This will be a contraversial post in this NG, but I think my stance is a
popular one. However, I would like to see a change in the standards to
allow an attribute that 'suggests' a target and allow the users browser
settings to determine whether they want to accept the default
suggestions, or make their own choices. I think this would appeal to the
purists, but still cater for the masses.
Just my £0.02.
Hi CJM,

Thank you for your clear response.
So the conclusion is that STRICT doctype simply forbids this useful
attribute.
That is annoying. In my humble opinion, this is a designmistake of w3c
for strict doctype. If you throw something out of the window, at least
offer a method/way of doing the same (in a different way).

Since it isn't up to me as the developer to demand JavaScript of my
(internet) clients, I don't want a JavaScript solution.
I think I follow your option 3: Simply use target and ignore the
validation error.

Thanks.

Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
Oct 8 '08 #3

P: n/a
In our last episode,
<48*********************@news.xs4all.nl>,
the lovely and talented Erwin Moller
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

Hi group,
I encoutered page validation error, but I don't know a way around.
The page has the following doctype:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
Some hyperlinks need to open to a new window,
No. No hyperlinks need to open in a new window. If you are not trying to
trap users, let them control their own browsers. If you are trying to trap
users, look for help elsewhere.

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/us****@larseighner.com
The Daily Beagle <http://larseighner.com/Daily_Beagle/>
Have an adequate day.
Oct 8 '08 #4

P: n/a
In our last episode, <48*********************@news.xs4all.nl>, the lovely
and talented Erwin Moller broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
Thank you for your clear response.
So the conclusion is that STRICT doctype simply forbids this useful
attribute.
'Target" is only useful to crooks who want to keep people trapped on their
sites.

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/us****@larseighner.com
The Daily Beagle <http://larseighner.com/Daily_Beagle/>
War hath no fury like a noncombatant.
- Charles Edward Montague
Oct 8 '08 #5

P: n/a
Hi

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:46:33 +0200, Erwin Moller wrote:
So the conclusion is that STRICT doctype simply forbids this useful
attribute.
Target is NOT useful, but it IS a massive pain-in-the-arse to USERS!
That is annoying.
No, making your users have to alt-tab back to the previous window and
close it and then switch back to the new one is annoying. It discards
the history and puts the window's icon in a different place in the
taskbar.
In my humble opinion, this is a designmistake of w3c
for strict doctype. If you throw something out of the window, at least
offer a method/way of doing the same (in a different way).
They have done exactly that. It is called "transitional". This is the
whole point and explicit purpose of transitional.

W3c specs have more bugs than the CIA, but this isn't one of them.
Since it isn't up to me as the developer to demand JavaScript of my
(internet) clients, I don't want a JavaScript solution. I think I follow
your option 3: Simply use target and ignore the validation error.
If you don't care about validation for-its-own-sake, why did you even
pass your page through the validator?

I think that you are confused as to your purpose. If you are developing
an intranet application and just happen to be using http/html to do it,
then use javascript. OTOH if you care about web standards then I suggest
that you just do "the right thing" and omit the attribute.

viza
Oct 8 '08 #6

P: n/a

Lars Eighner schreef:
In our last episode, <48*********************@news.xs4all.nl>, the lovely
and talented Erwin Moller broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
>Thank you for your clear response.
So the conclusion is that STRICT doctype simply forbids this useful
attribute.

'Target" is only useful to crooks who want to keep people trapped on their
sites.
Nonsense.
I often build apps that need multiple windows for ease of use for the
admin/visitor/etc.
This has nothing to do with trapping people.

Erwin Moller

--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
Oct 8 '08 #7

P: n/a

viza schreef:
Hi

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:46:33 +0200, Erwin Moller wrote:
>So the conclusion is that STRICT doctype simply forbids this useful
attribute.

Target is NOT useful, but it IS a massive pain-in-the-arse to USERS!
>That is annoying.
Hi Viza,
>
No, making your users have to alt-tab back to the previous window and
close it and then switch back to the new one is annoying. It discards
the history and puts the window's icon in a different place in the
taskbar.
I know.
But in some situations it is better than full pagereloads (or demanding
JavaScript).
>
>In my humble opinion, this is a designmistake of w3c
for strict doctype. If you throw something out of the window, at least
offer a method/way of doing the same (in a different way).

They have done exactly that. It is called "transitional". This is the
whole point and explicit purpose of transitional.
That doesn't explain the removal of the target.
I want to use STRICT to make sure my pages are well build.
I DON'T want w3c removing attibutes that are considered useful by many.

It is very simple:
-If you hate the use of multiple windows, you don't use target="".
-If you DO want to offer it, you use target="".

Leave it to the designer of the webpage.
Putting this into the definition of STRICT doctype is way too
paternalizing for my taste.
>
W3c specs have more bugs than the CIA, but this isn't one of them.
I didn't say it is a bug: it is a bad designdecision.
>
>Since it isn't up to me as the developer to demand JavaScript of my
(internet) clients, I don't want a JavaScript solution. I think I follow
your option 3: Simply use target and ignore the validation error.

If you don't care about validation for-its-own-sake, why did you even
pass your page through the validator?
Suggestive question.
If I don't care about validation I wouldn't have put this question here
in the first place.
This is the first time I run into something that doesn't validate, and I
cannot solve it. Hence my question.
Untill this problem, I had no problem with the STRICT doctype, I even
liked it.
>
I think that you are confused as to your purpose. If you are developing
an intranet application and just happen to be using http/html to do it,
then use javascript.
This app is for the internet at large.
I want to write good HTML, and decided much earlier to use STRICT.

As far as I understood the reasoning behind the STRICT doctype, it was
all about reducing the mess that HTML had become.
So I really try to use CSS in the way w3c has visioned, and remove a lot
of markup from my HTML. And I like it.
I simply wasn't aware of the fact w3c removed stuff without reasonable
replacement.

Once again: If YOU don't like it, don't offer it on your pages.
In my opinion this is up to the developer, so it was a bad call from w3c.

It feels to me like: "You cannot use a red border around an image
because some visitors might consider it annoying.".
OTOH if you care about web standards then I suggest
that you just do "the right thing" and omit the attribute.

viza

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
Oct 8 '08 #8

P: n/a
Hi

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:48:36 +0200, Erwin Moller wrote:
viza schreef:
>On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:46:33 +0200, Erwin Moller wrote:
>No, making your users have to alt-tab back to the previous window and
close it and then switch back to the new one is annoying. It discards
the history and puts the window's icon in a different place in the
taskbar.

I know.
But in some situations it is better than full pagereloads (or demanding
JavaScript).
It never is.
>>In my humble opinion, this is a designmistake of w3c for strict
doctype. If you throw something out of the window, at least offer a
method/way of doing the same (in a different way).

They have done exactly that. It is called "transitional". This is the
whole point and explicit purpose of transitional.

That doesn't explain the removal of the target. I want to use STRICT to
make sure my pages are well build.
It is very simple: well built pages do not use target. Pages that use
target use transitional to indicate that to the browser.
It is very simple:
-If you hate the use of multiple windows, you don't use target="". ->
If you DO want to offer it, you use target="".
Who is "you"? What matters is what the user hates, not you as the
developer.
Leave it to the designer of the webpage. Putting this into the
definition of STRICT doctype is way too paternalizing for my taste.
No one at the w3c is trying to stop you from using target. If you choose
to not use it then you can mark your pages as strict. If you choose to
use it then you should mark them as transitional. Deciding on strict
when you don't like what strict means is what causes you this problem.
>I think that you are confused as to your purpose. If you are
developing an intranet application and just happen to be using
http/html to do it, then use javascript.

This app is for the internet at large. I want to write good HTML, and
decided much earlier to use STRICT.
Good html, for use on the world-wide-web never ever under any
circumstances uses the target attribute.

Your misuse of terminology betrays your misunderstanding. You think you
are making an application, but applications are not part of the wwweb.
If you are making an application, you can do what you like, but you
should be aware of which users you are excluding. Conversely, if you are
developing for the wwweb, then you need to be aware what good web pages
simply cannot do.
As far as I understood the reasoning behind the STRICT doctype, it was
all about reducing the mess that HTML had become. So I really try to use
CSS in the way w3c has visioned, and remove a lot of markup from my
HTML. And I like it. I simply wasn't aware of the fact w3c removed stuff
without reasonable replacement.
Strict + css is about a logical change separating the presentation of
information from the data and metadata itself. That means letting the
html links contain the relationship between resources and letting the
browser and user decide how to display them. You need to decide if you
agree with this change. If you do, then use strict. If you don't, then
use target.

viza
Oct 8 '08 #9

P: n/a
additionally:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:48:36 +0200, Erwin Moller wrote:
It is very simple:
-If you hate the use of multiple windows, you don't use target="". ->
If you DO want to offer it, you use target="".
All web pages OFFER the use of multiple windows, ones which use target
REQUIRE it, whether the user wants it or not.

viza
Oct 8 '08 #10

P: n/a
Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:26:38 +0200 from Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.com>:
Some hyperlinks need to open to a new window,
That's an assumption on your part, and it's the source of your
problem.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Oct 8 '08 #11

P: n/a
Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:46:33 +0200 from Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.com>:
So the conclusion is that STRICT doctype simply forbids this useful
attribute.
For "useful" read "annoying".

My desktop is my business, not yours. If I want another window, I
know how to create it -- and so does everyone who cares about such
things.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Oct 8 '08 #12

P: n/a
Stan Brown wrote:
Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:46:33 +0200 from Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.com>:
>So the conclusion is that STRICT doctype simply forbids this useful
attribute.

For "useful" read "annoying".

My desktop is my business, not yours. If I want another window, I
know how to create it -- and so does everyone who cares about such
things.
If users really wanted to not open another tab, there are browser
options to prevent this.
I have a picture sharing website that opens pictures in new windows. It
is very convenient to have that enabled. If it was really annoying to
users, they would stop coming, or turn it off in their web browser.

Also doing uploads while performing others task (say in a different
window) is very convenient for forms.

Don't throw target all the way out the window.
Oct 8 '08 #13

P: n/a
CJM


"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fmwrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.ne t...
>
My desktop is my business, not yours.
Not if you work for my company, and not if you want to use certain
applications I develop.

Do you also rant at Microsoft for they way that their Office applications
work? Office used to use an MDI environment, but now a new document means a
new window on your Task Bar.
If I want another window, I
know how to create it --
I'm pleased for you. I really am.
and so does everyone who cares about such
things.
Ah, but here is the crux of the matter. Most people do not know how to
control their browsers.

And you want me to spoil the operation of my applications for my users
because you already know how to create new windows/tabs? That is arrogant
and selfish. Under my proposal, you would be able to configure your
operating environment as you wish, without impacting on others who don't
wish it the same. Your preferred solution is that one-size-fits-all. It
doesn't.


Oct 8 '08 #14

P: n/a

viza schreef:
Hi

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:48:36 +0200, Erwin Moller wrote:
>viza schreef:
>>On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:46:33 +0200, Erwin Moller wrote:
>>No, making your users have to alt-tab back to the previous window and
close it and then switch back to the new one is annoying. It discards
the history and puts the window's icon in a different place in the
taskbar.
I know.
But in some situations it is better than full pagereloads (or demanding
JavaScript).

It never is.
Hi Viza,

It never is? Quite a statement.

Please consider the following real life situation:
1) A certain page is produced by PHP as a result from some huge
databasequery that is quite demanding for the server.

2) The user must select many tuples for editting.

This is the moment I REALLY want a new window. The clicked tuple will
open in it, in a form, ready for editting and submitting back to the
server.
The server now only has to query one tuple, and I put it in a form. Easy
enough for the user, and easy for the server too.

If I do NOT have the luxery of a new window, I must reload the whole
page, and open the tuple in an edit-form.

This leads to:
1) Heavy serverload
2) Annoyed users (who must wait for each and every edittingaction)

In most circumstances I use an Ajaxoid approach to do this, but I am not
always allowed to demand JavaScript. In that situation a new window is
ideal.
(Using Ajax would have the advantage for me that I can update the huge
page without a huge pagereload, so I can immediately reflect the
changes. But no JavaScript means of course no Ajax.)

Please comment on the above scenario.
I totally miss target="" in STRICT in the described situation.

>
>>>In my humble opinion, this is a designmistake of w3c for strict
doctype. If you throw something out of the window, at least offer a
method/way of doing the same (in a different way).
They have done exactly that. It is called "transitional". This is the
whole point and explicit purpose of transitional.
That doesn't explain the removal of the target. I want to use STRICT to
make sure my pages are well build.

It is very simple: well built pages do not use target. Pages that use
target use transitional to indicate that to the browser.
>It is very simple:
-If you hate the use of multiple windows, you don't use target="". ->
If you DO want to offer it, you use target="".

Who is "you"? What matters is what the user hates, not you as the
developer.
No go there.
As you mentioned yourself you, the webdeveloper, can use transitional
doctype, and have a (legal) target.
So it IS already up to the developer.

Wise builders try not to annoy their users of course.
But saying a new window is always an annoyance is not a fact, but a
matter of taste.
That is why I don't understand it is removed in the STRICT doctype.
I read up a little more since my original post: I am not excactly the
first one that thinks this is a mistake of w3c.

>
>Leave it to the designer of the webpage. Putting this into the
definition of STRICT doctype is way too paternalizing for my taste.

No one at the w3c is trying to stop you from using target. If you choose
to not use it then you can mark your pages as strict. If you choose to
use it then you should mark them as transitional. Deciding on strict
when you don't like what strict means is what causes you this problem.
Yes, that is completely clear to me.
What is not clear is WHY it is removed in the STRICT doctype.
>
>>I think that you are confused as to your purpose. If you are
developing an intranet application and just happen to be using
http/html to do it, then use javascript.
This app is for the internet at large. I want to write good HTML, and
decided much earlier to use STRICT.

Good html, for use on the world-wide-web never ever under any
circumstances uses the target attribute.

Your misuse of terminology betrays your misunderstanding. You think you
are making an application, but applications are not part of the wwweb.
If you are making an application, you can do what you like, but you
should be aware of which users you are excluding. Conversely, if you are
developing for the wwweb, then you need to be aware what good web pages
simply cannot do.
Don't worry about my (mis)understanding of what an application is.
I have been a webdeveloper/databasedesigner/gamedeveloper for over 12
years now. Nothing wrong with calling a complex databasedriven bunch of
webpages a(n) (web)application.
But this has little to do with the subject at hand.
>
>As far as I understood the reasoning behind the STRICT doctype, it was
all about reducing the mess that HTML had become. So I really try to use
CSS in the way w3c has visioned, and remove a lot of markup from my
HTML. And I like it. I simply wasn't aware of the fact w3c removed stuff
without reasonable replacement.

Strict + css is about a logical change separating the presentation of
information from the data and metadata itself. That means letting the
html links contain the relationship between resources and letting the
browser and user decide how to display them. You need to decide if you
agree with this change. If you do, then use strict. If you don't, then
use target.
True.
I cannot change the STRICT doctype.
I am merely claiming it was a stupid decision of the w3c.

Right now I am in the difficult stituation I have to choose between
STRCIT and TRANSITIONAL doctype.
And I liked the STRICT a lot and was planning on using it for every new
project I start.
And yes, that is my problem, not yours.
But that doesn't mean w3c screwed up. :-(
>
viza
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
Oct 8 '08 #15

P: n/a

Stan Brown schreef:
Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:26:38 +0200 from Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.com>:
>Some hyperlinks need to open to a new window,

That's an assumption on your part, and it's the source of your
problem.
See my response to Viza for a real life situation where new windows are
a big help.

You can call it a faulty assumption from my side, but that only shows
you don't understand/appreciate my problem.
--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
Oct 8 '08 #16

P: n/a
CJM


"viza" <to******@gm-il.com.obviouschange.invalidwrote in message
news:1U*****************@newsfe19.ams2...
>
No one at the w3c is trying to stop you from using target. If you choose
to not use it then you can mark your pages as strict. If you choose to
use it then you should mark them as transitional. Deciding on strict
when you don't like what strict means is what causes you this problem.
There is no problem here. We can use target in a Strict environment quite
happily. We simply can't fully validate the HTML; but validation is a means
to an end and not an end itself.

I happily validate my pages, but ignore the Strict DTD's objection to
Target=.
>>I think that you are confused as to your purpose. If you are
developing an intranet application and just happen to be using
http/html to do it, then use javascript.

This app is for the internet at large. I want to write good HTML, and
decided much earlier to use STRICT.

Good html, for use on the world-wide-web never ever under any
circumstances uses the target attribute.
Good is subjective and, fortunately, you are not the arbiter of this.

However, HTML is used in both the wider web and in local intranet
environments
Your misuse of terminology betrays your misunderstanding. You think you
are making an application, but applications are not part of the wwweb.
Applications can be part of the www. There is absolutely no restriction on
this.

I'm not talking about Flickr or any other 'public' site. I design and host
applications an the web that support the work of distributed teams.

Yes, this NG has a titular 'www', and yes, there is an 'intranet' equivalent
NG; but for a long time this group has been getting the intranet NG traffic
because the intranet NG is dead and the theoretical overlap between the two
is so overwhelming. Like it or not, this group deals with a lot of
intranet-related discussion.
If you are making an application, you can do what you like, but you
should be aware of which users you are excluding.
Indeed, and hence in my narrowly defined context, I know my users and I know
what they want. Hence my use of the Target attribute.
>
Strict + css is about a logical change separating the presentation of
information from the data and metadata itself. That means letting the
html links contain the relationship between resources and letting the
browser and user decide how to display them.
A noble philosophy and one that, in general, I agree with. But...

The fact is that most of my users do not know (and do not want to learn) how
to use their browsers, and to accept the default Strict recommendations
would be an inconvenience for them. Most use IE7, though some use FF because
it has been recommended, but very few know how to open a link in a new tab
or a new window, and few know to right-click for a context sensitive menu.

Another consideration is that my applications are all dynamic and all are
set to expire immediately. The backwards and forwards movement that
manifests itself when the user doesn't know how to use tab/windows places
and extra load on my servers; not *that* much, but enough to want to avoid
it.

Oct 8 '08 #17

P: n/a

Stefan Ram schreef:
Erwin Moller <Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwrites:
>Why do people think I want to trap visitors?
Hi Stefan,
The web gives control to users.

Most authors of this newsgroup like it this way.
As do I.
>
Some publishers want to remove some of this control
from their users.
screw them.
>
Educated users, like the authors of this newsgroup,
will not like this. While other users who are not
aware of what is going on will not complain.
Indeed. Most internetuser have no clue what is going on anyway.

>
Actually, as a user, I do not care, too, because
my client will rewrite or remove your target
attribute the way I like it before I see the page.
But this is only my personal solution, not a
general solution.
I doubt that is a wise approach, but hey, it is your computer.
Just don't complain if you cannot use certain websites after your funky
rewrite rules.

>
The target attribute is just one example for this.

Other examples might be publishers trying to disable
the context menu or trying to hide the addresses of
resources.
Let them.
They won't stop me (or you) from getting the info anyway.
And no, I am such a publisher. I am a big Richard Stallman fan if you
know what I mean.

But I fail to see how this relates to the removal of the target
attribute in the STRICT doctype.

>
Of course, they always claim »Our users want it this
way.« One can never immediatly veto such a claim,
because one can not immediatly run a poll amoung those
users. But often, the proponent also will not be able
to refer to results of an actuall poll.
Stinking tactics, I know.
>
The sad thing is that sometimes they might be right
with this: Some uneducated users possibly might indeed
like this. I have not actually talked to such people,
but I know that less computer literate people really
sometimes might have other preferences than computer
educated users. For example, when they do not know how
to print any page with their browser, they will like
a »print« button on the web page that is just dirt to
someone who knows how to use his browser.
Excactly. I had to make these stupid printbuttons way too often. ;-)

So, when
publishers start to adjust their pages to the view of
uneducated users, the more educated users are annoyed
and suffer. However, I do not know whether this applies
to the use of the target attribute that is being
discussed here.
Well Stefan, I can only totally agree on all that. :-)

I still am very unhappy the target attribute is removed.
You don't have to tell me how to open a hyperlink in a new window/tab,
but this is something considered extremely difficult by some of my clients.
Sad but true.

That is why I miss the target="".
In my opinion:
1) Experienced users know how to disable popups, new windows, etc.
2) Inexperienced users have no clue, and telling them to press an extra
button on their keyboard, or use the rightmousebutton, etc is considered
as complex as quantummechanics by some.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
Oct 8 '08 #18

P: n/a
CJM wrote:
>

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fmwrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.ne t...
>>
My desktop is my business, not yours.

Not if you work for my company, and not if you want to use certain
applications I develop.
Thankfully, I don't work for you, and I may never use the applications
you develop.

Straying off topic here, but I don't know why, if I was your employee,
you would want to control my desktop. Wouldn't you allow me to set up my
work environment in the way that I am most productive?
Oct 8 '08 #19

P: n/a
CJM wrote:
Do you also rant at Microsoft for they way that their Office applications
work?
Yes. Well, in fact, no; I stopped using Microsoft products instead.

irina

--
"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth
should that mean that it is not real?" --Albus Dumbledore
http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 08-Oct-2008
Oct 8 '08 #20

P: n/a
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwriting
in news:48*********************@news.xs4all.nl:
>
viza schreef:
>Hi

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:48:36 +0200, Erwin Moller wrote:
>>viza schreef:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:46:33 +0200, Erwin Moller wrote:

It never is? Quite a statement.

Please consider the following real life situation:
1) A certain page is produced by PHP as a result from some huge
databasequery that is quite demanding for the server.

2) The user must select many tuples for editting.

This is the moment I REALLY want a new window. The clicked tuple will
open in it, in a form, ready for editting and submitting back to the
server.
The server now only has to query one tuple, and I put it in a form.
Easy enough for the user, and easy for the server too.

If I do NOT have the luxery of a new window, I must reload the whole
page, and open the tuple in an edit-form.

This leads to:
1) Heavy serverload
2) Annoyed users (who must wait for each and every edittingaction)
Why not put the whole thing on one page? Divide the page, one side for
the data, and the other side for the form. I do this all the time. No
need for new windows.

<snip>
What is not clear is WHY it is removed in the STRICT doctype.
It was not removed. It never existed in the Strict doctype at all.
That's why there is still Transitional.

With that said, I have found one reason to open a link in a new window.
Some flash sites, because of the way they were written, etc., do strange
things to the back button, making it difficult to use to get back to the
original page.

In this case, I do the following:
1. Inform the user that link is going to open in a new window. I
include this information on the page itself, and also in the title
attribute of the link itself, eg: <a href="http://example.com/"
title="Visit example in a new window" target="_blank">Example</a>.

2. Since I programatically send the doctype, I can put a variable on the
page before it is rendered to switch the doctype, eg:

$istransitional = true;

if(isset($istransitional))
{...}
else
{...}

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Oct 8 '08 #21

P: n/a

Erwin Moller wrote:
>
CJM schreef:
>>
To me, validation is a means to an end. And for many of my sites and
applications, I actively want the (usually external) link to open in a
new window. Often I don't want to leave it up to a useralways.

This will be a contraversial post in this NG, but I think my stance is a
popular one.

So the conclusion is that STRICT doctype simply forbids this useful
attribute. That is annoying. In my humble opinion, this is a
design mistake of w3c for strict doctype. If you throw something
out of the window, at least offer a method/way of doing the same
(in a different way).

I think I follow your option 3: Simply use target and ignore the
validation error.
I won't repeat the arguments against opening links in new windows,
except to say that I agree with them, and that they apply to *any*
method you use. It's the opening of a new window that is bad,
not whether it is done in HTML or JavaScript.

That being said, for those who want to open links in new windows
while retaining as many of the advantages of HTML 4.01 strict
as possible, serving up invalid markup is the wrong choice.
Far better would be commenting out the invalid tags, making the
rest of the page so it validates as HTML 4.01 Strict, putting
back the invalid tags, and changing the doctype to HTML 4.01
Transitional.

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Oct 8 '08 #22

P: n/a

Erwin Moller wrote:
>I want to use STRICT to make sure my pages are well build.
I DON'T want w3c removing attibutes that are considered useful by many.
<BLINKwas/is considered useful by many...

It has been my experience that many who think that target
blank is useful have not bothered to read and understand
the reasons why it is so reviled. The following pages make
a compelling case, and are well worth your time.

Using the target blank tag to force a link
to open in a new window breaks the Back button
http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day...w_windows.html

Target Blank is a Crime
http://valhallaisland.com/blog/2008/target-blank/

The Top Ten Web Design Mistakes
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html
(You are making mistake #1 and mistake #2...)

Links in new windows (target="blank") considered harmful
http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/09/new-window

I want my window, dammit! (or how to destroy target _blank)
http://meddle.dzygn.com/eng/weblog/destroy.target/

WAI WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 10.1:
"...do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do
not change the current window without informing the user..."

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Oct 8 '08 #23

P: n/a

Carl wrote:
>If it was really annoying to users, they would stop coming,
And you know how many people have stopped coming to your
website because of the annoyance -- how?
Links about using target="blank" or target="_blank":

_Using the target blank tag to force a link_
to open in a new window breaks the Back button
http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day...w_windows.html

_Target Blank is a Crime_
http://valhallaisland.com/blog/2008/target-blank/

_The Top Ten Web Design Mistakes_
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html
(See mistake #1 and mistake #2...)

_Links in new windows considered harmful_
http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/09/new-window

_I want my window, dammit! (or how to destroy target _blank)_
http://meddle.dzygn.com/eng/weblog/destroy.target/

_WAI WCAG 1.0 usability checkpoint 10.1:_
"...do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do
not change the current window without informing the user..."

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Oct 8 '08 #24

P: n/a

Adrienne Boswell schreef:
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwriting
in news:48*********************@news.xs4all.nl:
>viza schreef:
>>Hi

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:48:36 +0200, Erwin Moller wrote:
viza schreef:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:46:33 +0200, Erwin Moller wrote:
It never is? Quite a statement.

Please consider the following real life situation:
1) A certain page is produced by PHP as a result from some huge
databasequery that is quite demanding for the server.

2) The user must select many tuples for editting.

This is the moment I REALLY want a new window. The clicked tuple will
open in it, in a form, ready for editting and submitting back to the
server.
The server now only has to query one tuple, and I put it in a form.
Easy enough for the user, and easy for the server too.

If I do NOT have the luxery of a new window, I must reload the whole
page, and open the tuple in an edit-form.

This leads to:
1) Heavy serverload
2) Annoyed users (who must wait for each and every edittingaction)
Hi Adrienne,

Thanks for your response.
Why not put the whole thing on one page? Divide the page, one side for
the data, and the other side for the form. I do this all the time. No
need for new windows.
Interesting.
But what do you mean excactly with 'divide the page'?
(No frames or iframes I presume, since they need a target in the
hyperlink to address them.)

It must be a 'standalone' window/document for this to work (work = Load
the form and relevant content into it without the full pagereload).

Do you use the OBJECT tag with HTML content?
Something like:
<OBJECT type="text/html" data="http://www.example.com/bla.php?id=33"
width="500" height="200"></OBJECT>

If so, how do you target that object to change the data attribute when a
client clicks on a hyperlink elsewhere?

Excuse me if I am slow, I am kind of new to this approach. ;-)

>
<snip>
>What is not clear is WHY it is removed in the STRICT doctype.

It was not removed. It never existed in the Strict doctype at all.
That's why there is still Transitional.
Yes, I know that.
The mere name 'Transitional' alone suggest this is a doctype is ment to
be replaced in the future.
As I understand it: w3c encourages the use of strict.
So I try to use it now where I can.

>
With that said, I have found one reason to open a link in a new window.
Some flash sites, because of the way they were written, etc., do strange
things to the back button, making it difficult to use to get back to the
original page.

In this case, I do the following:
1. Inform the user that link is going to open in a new window. I
include this information on the page itself, and also in the title
attribute of the link itself, eg: <a href="http://example.com/"
title="Visit example in a new window" target="_blank">Example</a>.
Yes, I like to warn my visitors too when I open a new window.
>
2. Since I programatically send the doctype, I can put a variable on the
page before it is rendered to switch the doctype, eg:

$istransitional = true;

if(isset($istransitional))
{...}
else
{...}
Yes, that is a possibility.
But I prefer to keep my whole webapplication in the same doctype.
My psychiatrist is working on that. ;-)

I am curious how you split your page.
I might very well adopt that too since I want to keep using the STRICT
doctype.

Thanks for your time.

Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
Oct 8 '08 #25

P: n/a
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Scott Bryce wrote:
Straying off topic here, but I don't know why, if I was your employee,
you would want to control my desktop. Wouldn't you allow me to set up my
work environment in the way that I am most productive?
Nobody ever wanted to prevent this. The point was whether the application
designer may or may not make a suggestion for those users who do not set
up their work environment themselves. Believe it or not, such users exist
as well.

What is the correct way of suggesting a behaviour the user is free to
override?

--
Helmut Richter
Oct 8 '08 #26

P: n/a
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:48:36 +0200
Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwrote
in: <48*********************@news.xs4all.nl>

[snip]
I want to use STRICT to make sure my pages are well build.
[snip]

So now you have a page the is almost strict, it just has one or more
target attributes that muck it up.

Does a well built page have errors? If you choose to ignore the errors,
I think you are falling short of you goal to have a well built page.

I would suggest you go ahead an write your page as strict, then when
it's complete, only has errors relating to the use of the target
attributes, rather then ignoring the target errors change the doctype
to loose.
--

BootNic Wed Oct 8, 2008 11:27 am
One must learn by doing the thing, for though you think you know it,
you have no certainty until you try.
*Aristotle*

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkjs0XAACgkQylMUzZO6jeLxagCfRH9Y9a9CHz umhZEA8Ti/iBpB
UYEAn0H4R2JftF/ywkF9hE922n1K+7au
=Rt3/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Oct 8 '08 #27

P: n/a
CJM


"Scott Bryce" <sb****@scottbryce.comwrote in message
news:zN******************************@comcast.com. ..
CJM wrote:
>>

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fmwrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.n et...
>>>
My desktop is my business, not yours.

Not if you work for my company, and not if you want to use certain
applications I develop.

Thankfully, I don't work for you, and I may never use the applications
you develop.
They don't work for me - I work for them (my company = the company I work
for). They are my customers, albeit internal. And it is my job to listen to
them.

And as much as I agree with the sentiment for public internet pages, I feel
that there is a distinct benefit for dictating which links open in a new
tab/window and which don't. It is a view that is a direct consequence of
feedback to my applications. My users want certain pages to render in the
current tab/window and they want other specific pages to render in a new
tab/window. I've sat their and watched them ignore an on-screen shift-click
suggestion, and then they complain to me that they would prefer if said link
would open in a new window.
>
Straying off topic here, but I don't know why, if I was your employee,
you would want to control my desktop. Wouldn't you allow me to set up my
work environment in the way that I am most productive?
Would you want me to develop your application as you requested it, as would
make you more productive?

In my applications, web pages are means of providing an centrally-maintained
application; no installation of client updates, quick development times, low
support overheads. Had I opted to the same applications as Windows desktop
applications, there would have been no complaint when I explained that my
applications opened up separate windows for this and that. But as soon as
it's web-based, I'm a dictator riding roughshod over the wishes of my users.

That fact that many in this group seem to easily forget is that the
platforms originally developed for the world-wide-web are now legitimately
used in different scenarios. In my circumstances, the only reason to do what
I do is rigid dogma. [There is an argument to say that I should employ one
of the workarounds, such that the certain pages render in a new window, but
with the html still remaining valid - especially since I can guarantee that
my users have javascript enabled - but I don't.]

Oct 8 '08 #28

P: n/a
CJM


"Irina Rempt" <ir***@valdyas.orgwrote in message
news:48*********************@news.xs4all.nl...
CJM wrote:
>Do you also rant at Microsoft for they way that their Office applications
work?

Yes. Well, in fact, no; I stopped using Microsoft products instead.

irina
Lol.

Of course... and fair play to you.

Oct 8 '08 #29

P: n/a
In our last episode, <48*********************@news.xs4all.nl>, the lovely
and talented Erwin Moller broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

Lars Eighner schreef:
>In our last episode, <48*********************@news.xs4all.nl>, the lovely
and talented Erwin Moller broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
>>Thank you for your clear response.
So the conclusion is that STRICT doctype simply forbids this useful
attribute.

'Target" is only useful to crooks who want to keep people trapped on their
sites.
Nonsense.
I often build apps that need multiple windows for ease of use for the
admin/visitor/etc.
This has nothing to do with trapping people.
Then why do you deliberately disable the "back" button by opening a new
window/tab? There is no reason to do that except that you are afraid your
content is so lame that people will wander off unless you leave them an
extra window or tab to close.

--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/us****@larseighner.com
The Daily Beagle <http://larseighner.com/Daily_Beagle/>
War hath no fury like a noncombatant.
- Charles Edward Montague
Oct 8 '08 #30

P: n/a
Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwrites:
I often build apps that need multiple windows for ease of use for the
admin/visitor/etc.
Straw man. Target is not required to *allow* this ease of use. Opening
a link in a new window is an option your users already have.
This has nothing to do with trapping people.
Nonsense. Target doesn't give anyone a new option for navigation. It
takes away an option you don't happen to like, trapping your users into
your own personal opinion of what's easier.

This is like going into someone's house, taking away all of the food
except a can of beans, then bragging that you've "given" the cook the
"option" of having a can of beans for dinner.

If you're going to be a control freak, at least have the decency to
admit it - don't try to pretend you're doing your users a favor.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Oct 8 '08 #31

P: n/a
Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwrites:
I want to write good HTML
Make up your mind. Target is not "good HTML."

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Oct 8 '08 #32

P: n/a

Guy Macon schreef:
Erwin Moller wrote:
Hi Guy,

Thanks for the load of links, I knew one or two already.
I'll work through them.
>I want to use STRICT to make sure my pages are well build.
I DON'T want w3c removing attibutes that are considered useful by many.

<BLINKwas/is considered useful by many...

It has been my experience that many who think that target
blank is useful have not bothered to read and understand
the reasons why it is so reviled. The following pages make
a compelling case, and are well worth your time.

Using the target blank tag to force a link
to open in a new window breaks the Back button
http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day...w_windows.html
Yes, the back button is broken in a new window.
(Exception, windows opened with JavaScript can keep the the browsinghistory)
Conclusion: don't open new windows without a good reason.

>
Target Blank is a Crime
http://valhallaisland.com/blog/2008/target-blank/
Well, that writer makes a few mistakes.

This is the worst:
Don’t assume you know better than your users when it comes to ingrained
expected behaviour. If they want a link opened in a new window, they
will command click or select the option from a contextual menu. If they
don’t want it opened in a new window they’ll click without a modifier
like normal and expect normal behaviour.
This is maybe true for experienced websurfers, but surely NOT for
everybody. Like I wrote elsewhere: Using a controlbutton to open a new
window is considered as complex as quantummechanics to some.
So I want to help them.

I am NOT opening a new window to keep my company's webpage active, I am
opening a new window for ease of use of administrative tasks.

>
The Top Ten Web Design Mistakes
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html
(You are making mistake #1 and mistake #2...)
More of the same:

1. Breaking or Slowing Down the Back Button
<snip>
I addressed that already. I don't open new windows for no reason.
In my case the user don't need the back button anyway in the new window.
(And yes, in this case that is up to me do decide.)

2. Opening New Browser Windows
Opening up new browser windows is like a vacuum cleaner sales person who
starts a visit by emptying an ash tray on the customer's carpet. Don't
pollute my screen with any more windows, thanks (particularly since
current operating systems have miserable window management). If I want a
new window, I will open it myself!
Designers open new browser windows on the theory that it keeps users on
their site. But even disregarding the user-hostile message implied in
taking over the user's machine, the strategy is self-defeating since it
disables the Back button which is the normal way users return to
previous sites. Users often don't notice that a new window has opened,
especially if they are using a small monitor where the windows are
maximized to fill up the screen. So a user who tries to return to the
origin will be confused by a grayed out Back button.
"Designers open new browser windows on the theory that it keeps users on
their site."
Jumping to conclusions?
This guy (no pun intended) is making up his own argument, puts it into
your/my mouth, only to show the argument is invalid. Then he concludes
his first statement must be true.
I believe this is refered to as the 'strawman argument', a famous
logical fallacy.

I do not want to keep my company's website open.
I want to create an easy-going GUI for my clients.

>
Links in new windows (target="blank") considered harmful
http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/09/new-window
Allthough I visited annevankesteren.nl for other things, I think this
article is of little importance.
>
I want my window, dammit! (or how to destroy target _blank)
http://meddle.dzygn.com/eng/weblog/destroy.target/
That article describes how to avoid it from happening.
WAI WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 10.1:
"...do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do
not change the current window without informing the user..."

Guy, seriously, the BACK button is the only valid argument.
If webmasters like to open windows for no reason, they will only annoy
their visitors, I totally agree to that.

Still: I don't get it why the STRICT doctype doesn't allow the target
attribute.

Like I said elsewhere: I YOU (or the whole w3c) thinks a red border
around an image is annoying, you don't forbid it.
You allow the annoying red border, maybe warn against it, but you don't
forbid it.

In my opinion, this was a really bad call from w3c.
It helps NOBODY.

--Stupid webmasters who want to create many many new windows still do
so (using transitional, or even STRICT and don't validate).
--Good willing webmasters (like me) are forced to use transitional
because of lack of support of the target attribute.

So this decision is helping nobody.

I need a working solution for my problem, and I want it in STRICT.
Right now the only solution I have involves full pagereloads, unless
Andrienne can help me out (See other part of this thread). ;-)

Thanks for your time though. :-)

Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
Oct 8 '08 #33

P: n/a

Lars Eighner schreef:
In our last episode, <48*********************@news.xs4all.nl>, the lovely
and talented Erwin Moller broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

>Lars Eighner schreef:
>>In our last episode, <48*********************@news.xs4all.nl>, the lovely
and talented Erwin Moller broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

Thank you for your clear response.
So the conclusion is that STRICT doctype simply forbids this useful
attribute.
'Target" is only useful to crooks who want to keep people trapped on their
sites.
>Nonsense.
I often build apps that need multiple windows for ease of use for the
admin/visitor/etc.
This has nothing to do with trapping people.

Then why do you deliberately disable the "back" button by opening a new
window/tab? There is no reason to do that except that you are afraid your
content is so lame that people will wander off unless you leave them an
extra window or tab to close.
Oh man, get a life.
If you have nothing to contribute to this subject, or it is over your
head, simply stay out.
Thanks.

Erwin

--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
Oct 8 '08 #34

P: n/a
Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwrites:
Why do people think I want to trap visitors?
Because that's what target does.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Oct 8 '08 #35

P: n/a
CJM


"Erwin Moller"
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwrote in
message news:48*********************@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
In this case, I do the following:
1. Inform the user that link is going to open in a new window. I include
this information on the page itself, and also in the title attribute of
the link itself, eg: <a href="http://example.com/" title="Visit example
in a new window" target="_blank">Example</a>.

Yes, I like to warn my visitors too when I open a new window.
In some cases, I provide two links: the larger (ie. default) link renders in
the same window, and an image link to indicate a new window. There are
occasions where my users like the choice depending on circumstance (yes, of
course there is always shift-click, middle-click etc).

Oct 8 '08 #36

P: n/a

Sherm Pendley schreef:
Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwrites:
>I often build apps that need multiple windows for ease of use for the
admin/visitor/etc.

Straw man. Target is not required to *allow* this ease of use. Opening
a link in a new window is an option your users already have.
Hi,

You make the mistake to assume the avarage webuser has your knowledge.
Most don't.
I am 100% sure my mother doesn't know how to open a new browserwindow.

>
>This has nothing to do with trapping people.

Nonsense. Target doesn't give anyone a new option for navigation. It
takes away an option you don't happen to like, trapping your users into
your own personal opinion of what's easier.
Don't assume so much.
My personal opinion is that I open a new window when it suits ME, not
when it suits the builder of a webpage.
Sites that open a lot of windows, or open new windows without a clear
reason, loose me as their visitor. I hate that.

My whole point is that I find myself sometimes in situations where a new
window actually makes life easier for the visitor (and for my server
too): and now I cannot open a new window without being valid in STRICT
doctype.

Not putting target="" into the STRICT doctype doesn't help anybody.
Sites that want to make new windows keep doing so.
Sites that need it, for a good reason, cannot use it without giving up
STRICT doctype.
>
This is like going into someone's house, taking away all of the food
except a can of beans, then bragging that you've "given" the cook the
"option" of having a can of beans for dinner.

If you're going to be a control freak, at least have the decency to
admit it - don't try to pretend you're doing your users a favor.
You don't know what I am talking about.
You don't know how the webapplication at hand works, nor asked.
You don't know why I think it is easier for the client, nor asked.

Hell, you haven't got the slightest clue why I need a new window.
And, of course, you don't ask....

But that doesn't stop you claiming I am a controlfreak without any decency.
Nice meeting you Sherm.
Now please stay out unless you have something useful to contribute.

Erwin
>
sherm--

--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
Oct 8 '08 #37

P: n/a
Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwrites:
Lars Eighner schreef:
>>
Then why do you deliberately disable the "back" button by opening a new
window/tab?

Oh man, get a life.
If you have nothing to contribute to this subject, or it is over your
head, simply stay out.
Attacking Lars reflects badly on you, not he - it makes it appear that
you're dodging a question for which you have no logical answer. And it's
a reasonable question; using "target" does effectively disable the back
button, as the new window has no history. Why do you want to do that?

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Oct 8 '08 #38

P: n/a
CJM wrote:
That fact that many in this group seem to easily forget is that the
platforms originally developed for the world-wide-web are now
legitimately used in different scenarios.
I will grant you that there are times when those who know the rules, and
know the reasons behind the rules, will decide that they have a
compelling reason to break the rules. I have broken a lot of the rules
on my own site. If I thought I could present the information more
effectively using the rules, I would do so.
Oct 8 '08 #39

P: n/a
CJM


"Lars Eighner" <us****@larseighner.comwrote in message
news:sl*******************@debranded.larseighner.c om...
There is no reason to do that except that you are afraid your
content is so lame that people will wander off unless you leave them an
extra window or tab to close.
Lol... moving from an ideological viewpoint to an insulting rant.

Erwin thinks he has a good reason to want to dictate the target for a new
link. You disagree with him because you think it should be entirely left to
the user.

I don't recall him indicating an intention to trap people. I don't recall
him providing a URL - how did you determine that his content is so lame?
Apart from being 'that time of the month' is there any other reason you are
so hot under the collar?
Oct 8 '08 #40

P: n/a

BootNic schreef:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:48:36 +0200
Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwrote
in: <48*********************@news.xs4all.nl>

[snip]
>I want to use STRICT to make sure my pages are well build.
[snip]
Hi BootNic,
So now you have a page the is almost strict, it just has one or more
target attributes that muck it up.
Yes. All else validates now just fine.
>
Does a well built page have errors?
No. :-)

If you choose to ignore the errors,
I think you are falling short of you goal to have a well built page.
I agree.

That is excactly why investigated futher in this newsgroup.
It seems very illogical to me to not include target attribute into the
STRICT doctype.
It serve a purpose. The argument I hear against it involves misuse of
it. And that doesn't make sense to me since every webmaster who want to
keep misusing it can do so easily.

What I want is this:
1) Create webpages that validate in STRICT.
2) I need a solution for the missing new window. What I heard untill now
is simply that it is not possible.

So this is a kind of frustrating situation for me.
Appearantly w3c decided the target attribute is not wanted in STRICT,
but I don't have a solution for my problem: A page that is heavy to
create on the server (a few big queries) where I want to offer editting
for certain fields. I don't want to make a rundrobin to the server for
every small update. That is where a new window comes in handy.

>
I would suggest you go ahead an write your page as strict, then when
it's complete, only has errors relating to the use of the target
attributes, rather then ignoring the target errors change the doctype
to loose.
Agree. I think I will do that.

But..but...but.. I cannot be the first who makes this argument, since I
am a late starter with STRICT.
Does anybody know how and why the w3c came to this decision?

Thanks for you time BootNic.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
Oct 8 '08 #41

P: n/a
CJM


"Scott Bryce" <sb****@scottbryce.comwrote in message
news:ou******************************@comcast.com. ..
>
I will grant you that there are times when those who know the rules, and
know the reasons behind the rules, will decide that they have a
compelling reason to break the rules. I have broken a lot of the rules
on my own site. If I thought I could present the information more
effectively using the rules, I would do so.
It is debatable whether my reason is compelling. I could insist that users
be better trained in both standard browser behaviour and better trained in
my applications, so they know how & when to break out of the starting
window. But experience and practicality ushers me in a different direction.

The will surely come a day when target= simply won't work, or worse still,
will fundamentally break the application - and I am mindful of this.
Equally, there may also come a day where the W3C approach changes to address
the issue, to provide some sort of compensation for the need that makes me
want to work against the standard.

It's a trade-off between a quick & practical solution and the ideal one.

Oct 8 '08 #42

P: n/a

Sherm Pendley schreef:
Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwrites:
>Lars Eighner schreef:
>>Then why do you deliberately disable the "back" button by opening a new
window/tab?
Oh man, get a life.
If you have nothing to contribute to this subject, or it is over your
head, simply stay out.

Attacking Lars reflects badly on you, not he - it makes it appear that
you're dodging a question for which you have no logical answer. And it's
a reasonable question; using "target" does effectively disable the back
button, as the new window has no history. Why do you want to do that?

sherm--
Ah Sherm again..

I'll answer your question:

What you left out so conveniently in your posting was the rest of Lars'
post.
I'll quote it for you again:

There is no reason to do that except that you are afraid your
content is so lame that people will wander off unless you leave them an
extra window or tab to close.
Do you call that a fair question?
My lame content?
I being an idiot who thinks it serves a purpose to keep visitors locked
up in my site?
Come on Sherm...
I must read through the insults and insinuations to find an actual
question that is being discussed already, in a mature way, by Guy Macon
elsewhere in this thread.

No thanks. I have been on usenet long enough: I have developed a good
sense to spot people who try to be a smartass and don't help at all.
I never start flaming myself, but if people ask for it, well I return
the favor.

I also seriously doubt what you claim: "Attacking Lars reflects badly on
you, not he".
If this is Lars' regular way of posting, I don't expect him to be well
respected at all. Sorry.

Let's drop this.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
Oct 8 '08 #43

P: n/a

Sherm Pendley schreef:
Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwrites:
>Why do people think I want to trap visitors?

Because that's what target does.
Sherm,

If you really think THAT is what target does, well that says a lot about
you, not about target or me.

You have a very narrow understanding of what I need.

Did you ever build serious websites with a huge underlying database?
If so, how do you offer editting for certain users of a very large
resultset without the use of Ajax or a new window?
Do you reload your page on each and every request/post?

Please, get to business.
I am a experienced developer, and I have a real world problem.
I don't need your cheap shots like "Because that's what target does.".
Doesn't help at all.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

>
sherm--

--
============================
Erwin Moller
Now dropping all postings from googlegroups.
Why? http://improve-usenet.org/
============================
Oct 8 '08 #44

P: n/a
Guy Macon wrote:
Carl wrote:
>If it was really annoying to users, they would stop coming,

And you know how many people have stopped coming to your
website because of the annoyance -- how?
Links about using target="blank" or target="_blank":

_Using the target blank tag to force a link_
to open in a new window breaks the Back button
http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day...w_windows.html

_Target Blank is a Crime_
http://valhallaisland.com/blog/2008/target-blank/

_The Top Ten Web Design Mistakes_
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html
(See mistake #1 and mistake #2...)

_Links in new windows considered harmful_
http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/09/new-window

_I want my window, dammit! (or how to destroy target _blank)_
http://meddle.dzygn.com/eng/weblog/destroy.target/

_WAI WCAG 1.0 usability checkpoint 10.1:_
"...do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do
not change the current window without informing the user..."


It would be very obvious if they stopped coming. If opening a new
window for a picture is really that perturbing, then I would know from
the decreased traffic. Since traffic does not decrease, and in fact
increases, I can be fairly certain that open a new window for a pic is
not a problem to worry about.
Oct 8 '08 #45

P: n/a
Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwrites:
Sherm Pendley schreef:
>Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spa myourself.comwrites:
>>Lars Eighner schreef:
Then why do you deliberately disable the "back" button by opening a new
window/tab?
Oh man, get a life.
If you have nothing to contribute to this subject, or it is over your
head, simply stay out.

Attacking Lars reflects badly on you, not he - it makes it appear that
you're dodging a question for which you have no logical answer. And it's
a reasonable question; using "target" does effectively disable the back
button, as the new window has no history. Why do you want to do that?

I'll answer your question:
But you didn't answer it. You're still dodging it.

You claim you want to make things easier for your users. But what you
"give" them with target is something they already had, and you want to
take away at least two useful functions of their browser - the ability
to *choose* to open a link wherever they want, and the back button.

Your complaint about Lars' manners has merit, but his question is still
valid. If you truly want to make your site easier to use, why do you
insist on taking steps that have the opposite result?
I also seriously doubt what you claim: "Attacking Lars reflects badly
on you, not he".
If this is Lars' regular way of posting, I don't expect him to be well
respected at all. Sorry.
You don't need to apologize to me - if you value warm fuzzy feelings
over cold hard facts, that's your loss.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Oct 8 '08 #46

P: n/a

Erwin Moller wrote:
>Not putting target="" into the STRICT doctype doesn't help anybody.
Sites that want to make new windows keep doing so.
Sites that need it, for a good reason, cannot use it without giving up
STRICT doctype.
That's like saying...

Not allowing meat in a vegetarian diet help anybody. People who
want to eat meat will keep doing so. Diets that need meat, for a
good reason, cannot use it without giving up the vegetarian label.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Oct 8 '08 #47

P: n/a
Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spam yourself.comwrites:
Sherm Pendley schreef:
>Erwin Moller
<Si******************************************@spa myourself.comwrites:
>>Why do people think I want to trap visitors?

Because that's what target does.

If you really think THAT is what target does, well that says a lot
about you, not about target or me.
Without the use of target, users have the ability to choose whether to
open a link in a new window, or not. With it, you've trapped your users
into one way of working - yours.
Did you ever build serious websites with a huge underlying database?
Yes, of course. I've been doing that since 1994. That's how I know about
the dangers of using target - I've been there, done that, and learned
from the mistake.
If so, how do you offer editting for certain users of a very large
resultset without the use of Ajax or a new window?
Again with the straw man. I haven't said anything about *preventing* the
use of a new window. I do, in fact, use cmd-click to open a link in a
new tab quite often. What I object to is using target to *require* a new
window.
Do you reload your page on each and every request/post?
If that's what the user chooses to do, then yes. If I think a lot of my
users might find it more convenient to open individual records in a new
window, I include a text note to that effect - "to open these widgets in
a new window, simply ctrl-click (Windows) or cmd-click (Mac) the links."

I like to give as many options as possible. *I* may like new windows,
but I've got a big, high-res monitor and 20/20 vision. Someone with a
smaller monitor and/or poor eyesight, or someone for whom keeping track
of multiple windows is annoying and/or difficult, may have different
preferences than I do - they may find it easier to use the back and
forward buttons to navigate.

If the page is a result of a lengthy calculation, I look for ways to fix
that problem, rather than forcing users to have multiple windows that
they may not want to deal with. Cacheing the results in a session, for
instance, and simply serving them again without recalculating.
I don't need your cheap shots like "Because that's what target
does.".
Why do you interpret it as a cheap shot? Target, by definition,
precludes other options. It traps users into one particular way of
working with their browser.
Doesn't help at all.
It sounds to me like you've already made up your mind about what advice
you want to hear, and now you're angry because it's not the advice you
are actually getting.

Which begs the question - if you've already made up your mind that
target is a good thing and the validator is wrong, why bother asking for
help in the first place?

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Oct 8 '08 #48

P: n/a

Erwin Moller wrote:
>But..but...but.. I cannot be the first who makes this argument, since I
am a late starter with STRICT.
Does anybody know how and why the w3c came to this decision?
Target was removed, along with everything else that has anything
to do to do with frames or windows, because HTML 4.o1 Strict
attempts to keep to the intended purpose of HTML, which is marking
up document content, not modifying the user interface.

The basic philosophy behind HTML 4.01 Strict seperates content,
styling, and browser behaviour.

Content is determined by HTML and is, of course, not optional.

Styling is optional and is determined by CSS

Browser behavior is optional and is determined by ECMAScript
(also known as JavaScript).

Opening a link in a new window is a deviation from normal
browser behaviour, so belongs in Javascript not in HTML.

Those who, like you, disagree with the basic philosophy behind
HTML 4.01 are free to use Transitional, which allows many of
the old ways. Those who. like me, disagree with the basic
philosophy behind HTML 4.01 do not want our content, styling
and user behavior to be mixed together, and we certainly do
not want changes to browser behavior to be non-optional.
>What I want is this:
1) Create webpages that validate in STRICT.
Why? It isn't because you agree with the definitition of what
should or should not be allowed in that doctype -- you don't.

It isn't because there is no DOCTYPE that allows target -- there is.

It isn't because your users will see any difference -- they won't.

Why use strict instead of what I suggested, which is to make
everything else validate as strict, add your not-strict target
tag, and serve it as transitional?
>So this is a kind of frustrating situation for me.
Appearantly w3c decided the target attribute is not wanted in STRICT,
And, as you can see from this thread, many of us fully agree with that
decision.
>but I don't have a solution for my problem:
Sure you do. HTML 4.01 Transitional.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Oct 8 '08 #49

P: n/a

Carl wrote:
>
Guy Macon wrote:
>Carl wrote:
>>If it was really annoying to users, they would stop coming,

And you know how many people have stopped coming to your
website because of the annoyance -- how?

It would be very obvious if they stopped coming.
No it wouldn't. It could be that your traffic would be incereasing
twice as fast. You have no way of knowing whether it would have.
>If opening a new window for a picture is really that perturbing,
then I would know from the decreased traffic.
No you wouldn't. See above.
>Since traffic does not decrease, and in fact increases, I can
be fairly certain that open a new window for a pic is not a
problem to worry about.
You have no rational reason for such certainty. There are
multiple factors that cause increases or decreases in visitors,
and it might be true that, for example, your content is driving
a 20% increase while your navigation is driving a 10% decrease.
Looking at the resulting 10% total increase does not tell you
anything about the specific factors that add up to that total.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Oct 8 '08 #50

92 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.